7:25 a.m.
Good feedback. We'll eventually open up the protocol mapper spi so that
the entire assertion can be modified.
On 9/11/16 7:43 PM, Rashmi Singh wrote:
Looking at the keycloak source code to see how NameID value is set in
the SAML response, we came across SamlProtocol class that has the
following method:
protected String getNameId(String nameIdFormat,
ClientSessionModel clientSession, UserSessionModel userSession) {
if
(nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_EMAIL.get())) {
return userSession.getUser().getEmail();
} else if
(nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_TRANSIENT.get()))
{
// "G-" stands for "generated" Add this for the slight
possibility of collisions.
return "G-" + UUID.randomUUID().toString();
} else if
(nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_PERSISTENT.get()))
{
return getPersistentNameId(clientSession, userSession);
} else if
(nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_UNSPECIFIED.get()))
{
// TODO: Support for persistent NameID (pseudo-random
identifier persisted in user object)
return userSession.getUser().getUsername();
} else {
return userSession.getUser().getUsername();
}
}
which is just returning either email or username because of which we
are restricted in the value that can be set for the NameID. We are not
able to set NameID to any value other than this. With our customers,
we have seen lot of cases where users have different IDs across SPs.
With the current implementation in KeyCloak, it seems we can only
return Name or Email as NameID. Ideally in case of “Unspecified”
format, we should have a mechanism to map Name ID to any of user
property/attribute. Do you have any plans to add support for this use
case?
With regard to solving this problem, one option could be to implement
a protocol mapper that can be used to map any user property/attribute
to NameID. Currently protocol mapper can only be used to return
saml:Attribute, so writing a new protocol mapper specifically for
requesting NameID would be useful. Is this feasible? And, do you have
any plans to add support for this usecase?
If you are not planning to implement this, are there any design or
implementation level inputs/help you can provide on this? And if we
implement this protocol mapper from our side, would it be possible to
merge it back to the master branch?
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev